I would very much appreciate if someone has insight into my problem. Please view attached images. They are portions of images taken with a new Fuji X-pro1 and zoomed in to 300% in Photoshop. They all exhibit this pattern of dots. I've never seen it before and it's in every image.

Just to be sure, are you certain that this pattern is caused by raw conversion with LR and it's nothing to do with the camera? If so, do you thing the situation will improve with LR in the future or am I condemned to using the Fuji raw converter?

Just to be sure, are you certain that this pattern is caused by raw conversion with LR and it's nothing to do with the camera? If so, do you thing the situation will improve with LR in the future or am I condemned to using the Fuji raw converter?

Thanks much!Eddie

Did you compare with in-camera generated JPEGs? If those look good, you cn be pretty certain that it is a raw converter artifact.

Just to be sure, are you certain that this pattern is caused by raw conversion with LR and it's nothing to do with the camera? If so, do you thing the situation will improve with LR in the future or am I condemned to using the Fuji raw converter?

Thanks much!Eddie

It looks like a raw processing artifact to me. But the only way to be sure is to try in another raw converter. Either use SILKYPIX (which came with the camera), or post the raw somewhere for others to try.

It is the same sort of artifact I saw with my images from RAW files with a Fuji X10 when using ACR. The RAW files were unusable unless Silkypix was the RAW developer. The other problem with that camera was that no matter what you did with Silkypix the out of camera JPEG files still came out so much better than the RAW files, which made me think that Silkypix hadn't properly nailed it anyway. Hope that isn't the case with the Pro1. The X10 was my shortest lived camera ever and I sold it pronto.

I made a quick test converting a X-Pro1 RAW file into JPEG, TIFF and DNG in Lightroom 4.2, then converting DNG to JPEG in Bridge (Photoshop) and also viewing the DNG file in Photoshop. There were nothing wrong with the pictures, all identical.

Have you checked in-camera JPEGs (you can convert RAW file residing on the SD card in camera after the shoot) or converted the files with SilkyPix which comes with the camera. That way you can find out if it is the camera or some strange setting in LR which causes this.--------

Off Topic: The strange "watercolor" effect noticeable most easily in foliage is caused by pushing the sharpening amount slider past 25 in LR 4.2, by the way. The effect looks like the pseudo random pixel arrangement in the X-Pro1 sensor. The rumor has it that Fuji and Adobe are working on this problem together now.

The only time I have seen a pattern like that in raw's is with a raw converter that did not support the x-pro 1 but recognized the RAF file type, I have not seen this with Adobe. Seen the watercolor issue plenty of times but not this from ACR.

I'm very thankful to all who responded. I still haven't had time to do my set of tests but I feel pretty confident that I'm facing a conversion issue. The real question now is if I want to keep the camera at all. I've never been quite happy with it and this problem doesn't help.

I'm very thankful to all who responded. I still haven't had time to do my set of tests but I feel pretty confident that I'm facing a conversion issue. The real question now is if I want to keep the camera at all. I've never been quite happy with it and this problem doesn't help.

Focus is my main issue with this camera. The auto focus is a gamble at best and the manual is impractical enough be unusable. Additionally, there are too many buttons and dials that get pressed accidentally with very disruptive consequences. Almost every dial in the camera, including the aperture dial is soft enough that it gets moved without you realizing it. I thought I'd be getting a cheaper Leica M but it's nothing like a Leica M and altogether not something that great for someone shooting quickly in the streets.

Eddie C: It is no Leica M, as it has autofocus and the picture quality is much better especially in low light situations. Autofocus needs some getting used to and certainly something like D4 or 1Dx would grab more exactly focused shots on the streets, but still there is something in the camera that makes it a very good street tool. It is much more possible to blend in and look harmless with X-Pro1 than with larger, "better" DSLR for example. Being able and comfortable to take pictures often results in more good shots than using better tools which are not so comfortable to use and look too much out of place.

I went to Jerusalem with X-Pro1 on vacation in September. A magazine wanted to publish the pictures, 12 pages. Based on this they sent me to SAE for over 2 weeks to do a similar job, and of course I took the same gear, only adding X-E1 body as spare. Now they are shuffling the layout of the next week's issue to get at least 14 pages for the photos. Using something like X-Pro1 is an integral part of getting the right feel, immersion and IQ in street photographs, at least to me. Needless to say these two trips have more than paid for the cameras and lenses which I paid for myself, even though I have a full D4/D3 kit from the same publishing company for free.

Eddie C: It is no Leica M, as it has autofocus and the picture quality is much better especially in low light situations. Autofocus needs some getting used to and certainly something like D4 or 1Dx would grab more exactly focused shots on the streets, but still there is something in the camera that makes it a very good street tool. It is much more possible to blend in and look harmless with X-Pro1 than with larger, "better" DSLR for example. Being able and comfortable to take pictures often results in more good shots than using better tools which are not so comfortable to use and look too much out of place.

I went to Jerusalem with X-Pro1 on vacation in September. A magazine wanted to publish the pictures, 12 pages. Based on this they sent me to SAE for over 2 weeks to do a similar job, and of course I took the same gear, only adding X-E1 body as spare. Now they are shuffling the layout of the next week's issue to get at least 14 pages for the photos. Using something like X-Pro1 is an integral part of getting the right feel, immersion and IQ in street photographs, at least to me. Needless to say these two trips have more than paid for the cameras and lenses which I paid for myself, even though I have a full D4/D3 kit from the same publishing company for free.

Great work Petrus. I think you have used this tool for the right job. I still am getting used to the X-Pro and it is challenging to work with it .The backfocus is something to keep in mind at all times. Skin tones are a bit off. It is overpriced as a camera and unfortunately one only realizes after has bought it and put it to test. But I like it ,It is a lot less intrusive then my bigger Nikon. I can live with it for the time being .Thanks for sharing your photos